I am pleased to share with you the closing argument of my attorney, Mr. Jones.
May it please the Court. I know it’s a little outmoded. When I was in law school we had a saying, the law is the law. And that’s our case in a nutshell. Except as provided in subsection B, a person operating motor vehicle, the exceptions are plain, less than, a lane that’s less than 14 feet in width and does not have a designated bike lane adjacent to that lane.
Evidence is uncontradicted, 12 feet, not 14; therefore, he had the right. Actually he had the duty, legally, to be in that lane of traffic; or, too narrow for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to safely travel side-by-side. Again the evidence is uncontradicted. It’s not safe if he stays over to the right hand side. His statement – really the police officers didn’t testify to the contrary. I doubt that they would if they had been asked. The base fact is 551.103 says he has to operate that in that lane of traffic. It is true that the statute, the shoulder statute says that he has an or option. But he explained to the Court why he does not do so.
Rumble strips are put there for a reason because cars drift off to that side when drivers lose their attention. He didn’t go out there with any intention to slow people down. And he certainly didn’t go out there with any intention to draw an accident. In fact, in all of this time riding on this highway, he’s never seen an accident occur. So it can hardly be called reckless indifference or some kind of wonton disregard when his common experience is that there is no such accident. I submit to the court that it is simply a matter of law.
America Beats the Canadians for the First Time
4 weeks ago